Introduction: To inform the WHO Guideline on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review of the impact of ovulation predictor kits (OPKs) on time-to-pregnancy, pregnancy, live birth, stress/anxiety, social harms/adverse events and values/preferences.
Methods: Included studies had to compare women desiring pregnancy who managed their fertility with and without OPKs, measure an outcome of interest and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched for studies on PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE through November 2018. We assessed risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for observational studies, and conducted meta-analysis using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).
Results: Four studies (three RCTs and one observational study) including 1487 participants, all in high-income countries, were included. Quality of evidence was low. Two RCTs found no difference in time-to-pregnancy. All studies reported pregnancy rate, with mixed results: one RCT from the 1990s among couples with unexplained or male-factor infertility found no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.32); two more recent RCTs found higher self-reported pregnancy rates among OPK users (pooled RR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80). A small observational study found higher rates of pregnancy with lab testing versus OPKs among women using donor insemination services. One RCT found no increase in stress/anxiety after two menstrual cycles using OPKs, besides a decline in positive affect. No studies measured live birth or social harms/adverse events. Six studies presented end-users' values/preferences, with almost all women reporting feeling satisfied, comfortable and confident using OPKs.
Conclusion: A small evidence base, from high-income countries and with high risk of bias, suggests that home-based use of OPKs may improve fertility management when attempting to become pregnant with no meaningful increase in stress/anxiety and with high user acceptability.
Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO registration number CRD42019119402.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6509595 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001403 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
A nomogram model to predict the high risk of lower live birth probability in young women undergoing the first IVF-ET cycle: a retrospective study.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
January 2025
Reproductive Medicine Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Objective: To build a prediction nomogram for early prediction of live birth probabilities according to number of oocytes retrieved in women ≤ 35 years of age.
Methods: A prediction model was built including 9265 infertile women ≤ 35 years of age accepting their first ovum pick-up cycle from January 2018 to December 2022. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was performed to identify independent predictors and establish a nomogram to predict reproductive outcomes.
Development and validation of a nomogram for failure to collect oocytes in POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4 undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.
Sci Rep
December 2024
Center for Reproductive Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, China.
This study aimed to develop and validate a predictive model for failure to collect oocytes in the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) Groups 3 and 4 during their first in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients in POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4 who underwent their first IVF/ICSI cycle at our center from January 2016 to December 2023. A total of 2,373 patients were randomly assigned to the training or validation cohort at a ratio of 6:4.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPressure to Perform: Are All Ovulation Predictor Kits the Same?
Fertil Steril
December 2024
Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address:
Can a lack of knowledge of the ovulatory cycle result in primary infertility? Evidence from selected South Asian countries.
Hum Fertil (Camb)
December 2025
Department of Fertility and Social Demography, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India.
Knowledge of ovulatory cycle (KOC) is a crucial factor for successful conception. Despite sizable number of women suffering from infertility, empirical evidence on the relation between infertility and KOC is rare in South Asia. This study assesses the association between primary infertility and KOC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe best ovarian reserve marker to predict ovarian response following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Syst Rev
December 2024
School of Medicine, Academic Unit of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Background: One of the most challenging aspects of treating patients facing primary ovarian insufficiency, especially those eligible for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), is the assessment of ovarian function and response to stimulatory protocols in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved. The lack of consistency between studies regarding the best parameter for response evaluation necessitates a comprehensive statistical analysis of the most commonly utilized ovarian reserve markers (ORM). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the optimal metric for assessing ovarian reserve among COH candidates.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!